EPTbut did they deserve it for what they've done? yes, and maybe another 3.
For once in history, many people could agree how an america bomb actually did GOOD this time.
Nuclear Launch Detected... =o - Page 7
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
dinmsab
Malaysia2246 Posts
but did they deserve it for what they've done? yes, and maybe another 3. For once in history, many people could agree how an america bomb actually did GOOD this time. | ||
|
stanners
United States49 Posts
I don't care what the excuses are or what the reasons were. Dropping an atomic bomb that'll decimate all life into the heart of a civilian centre? That is the ultimate fucking low in war. You never kill civilians. If they dropped it into a heavily concentrated military area or supply area, then yes, I would say it is. But dropping it into the largest most populated cities? No, no matter how you put it, fucking no. And then dropping ANOTHER one? Any of least-viable justifications just went down the shithole. Testing the bomb? Testing it 50 times it in Nevada isn't enough? Can't get them to surrender? I'm sure there are a TON of ways to make them surrender. Such as embargos on their food, killing their leader, destroying their entire army, etc. Dropping TWO bombs into the heart of two populated cities was not necessary. What other bullshit reasons are there? No matter how you put it, it doesn't pan out. And what's with the title, you make this piece of history seem like a fuckin joke. | ||
|
the.dude
United States16 Posts
On November 02 2008 17:33 stanners wrote: Fuck, no. I don't care what the excuses are or what the reasons were. Dropping an atomic bomb that'll decimate all life into the heart of a civilian centre? That is the ultimate fucking low in war. You never kill civilians. If they dropped it into a heavily concentrated military area or supply area, then yes, I would say it is. But dropping it into the largest most populated cities? No, no matter how you put it, fucking no. And then dropping ANOTHER one? Any of least-viable justifications just went down the shithole. Testing the bomb? Testing it 50 times it in Nevada isn't enough? Can't get them to surrender? I'm sure there are a TON of ways to make them surrender. Such as embargos on their food, killing their leader, destroying their entire army, etc. Dropping TWO bombs into the heart of two populated cities was not necessary. What other bullshit reasons are there? No matter how you put it, it doesn't pan out. And what's with the title, you make this piece of history seem like a fuckin joke. sigh another uninformed sheep. | ||
|
HeavOnEarth
United States7087 Posts
well did they really... WOULD they really.. i'm no prophet but japan looked on the brink of... doom, if US wanted to showcase their power, they couldve just landed the nuke next to japan, they would feel the power, know the power, but no lives would be lost... civilians at least, I think the whole reason the dropped the nukes is because 1. manhatten project costed BILLIONS, and this was the olden days where that was a LOTTT. 2. russia, fuckign russia. can't let them 1up on the US. 3. desperate times... war... i think generally without the "pressure , no president would order such atrocities such as hiroshima." | ||
|
Nitan
United States3401 Posts
On November 02 2008 17:33 stanners wrote: Testing the bomb? Testing it 50 times it in Nevada isn't enough? Can't get them to surrender? I'm sure there are a TON of ways to make them surrender. Such as embargos on their food, killing their leader, destroying their entire army, etc. Dropping TWO bombs into the heart of two populated cities was not necessary. What other bullshit reasons are there? No matter how you put it, it doesn't pan out. This is just terrible. | ||
|
stanners
United States49 Posts
Embargos, assassinations of the people responsible, disabling their firepower is more terrible compared to dropping bombs on innocent? Your moral scale is a bit off. Sigh, another brainwashed dog | ||
|
the.dude
United States16 Posts
 i like where you are going stanner. | ||
|
HeavOnEarth
United States7087 Posts
USA did try a lot of things prior to nukes... actually putting the OIL embargo was what caused pearl harbor in the first place ;o it just shows that... those things they've tried...simply don't work japenese were pretty.. aggrogant so to speak my stance on the war is still being formed however, don't know enough about it to make a real conclusion; hopefully tl remedies that :D | ||
|
b_unnies
3579 Posts
On November 02 2008 17:33 stanners wrote: Fuck, no. I don't care what the excuses are or what the reasons were. Dropping an atomic bomb that'll decimate all life into the heart of a civilian centre? That is the ultimate fucking low in war. You never kill civilians. If they dropped it into a heavily concentrated military area or supply area, then yes, I would say it is. But dropping it into the largest most populated cities? No, no matter how you put it, fucking no. And then dropping ANOTHER one? Any of least-viable justifications just went down the shithole. Testing the bomb? Testing it 50 times it in Nevada isn't enough? Can't get them to surrender? I'm sure there are a TON of ways to make them surrender. Such as embargos on their food, killing their leader, destroying their entire army, etc. Dropping TWO bombs into the heart of two populated cities was not necessary. What other bullshit reasons are there? No matter how you put it, it doesn't pan out. And what's with the title, you make this piece of history seem like a fuckin joke. guess you never studied WW2 at school | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
On November 02 2008 17:38 stanners wrote: Terrible? Embargos, assassinations of the people responsible, disabling their firepower is more terrible compared to dropping bombs on innocent? Your moral scale is a bit off. Sigh, another brainwashed dog Because starvation is a much more pleasant way to die than a nuclear bomb. Oh you humanitarian you, always looking out for the children. | ||
|
EmeraldSparks
United States1451 Posts
The Americans expected to suffer a million casualties; the casualties on the Japanese side would likely have been far more horrific. The Japanese were big on fighting to the death. Even at the close of the war, men, women, and children in other parts of Asia were perishing in the thousands daily due to the continued war. It goes without saying that at that point in time, the idea of killing civilians to achieve military goals was completely accepted in all circles of leadership. However, there is some evidence to suggest that dropping the second bomb (conceivably the first) may have been unnecessary had the allies been willing to relax to a small degree the demand of unconditional surrender. This was held as unacceptable. It is also conceivable that choosing, say, Mt. Fuji or other less populous targets for demonstrations might have the same effect, the danger is that it would not and that we would have to wait X months for us to build more bombs. Allied leadership chose to fall on the side of ending the war more swiftly. | ||
|
HeavOnEarth
United States7087 Posts
On November 02 2008 17:39 the.dude wrote: hehe, yes the question becomes, is it more humane to kill someone with a nuclear bomb or to starve them to death i like where you are going stanner.lol. it's like torturing... just en masse threatening didn't work... so it's either kill someone to scare the rest, or beat them all senseless till they submit haha that's hilarious | ||
|
stanners
United States49 Posts
On November 02 2008 17:41 BlackJack wrote: Because starvation is a much more pleasant way to die than a nuclear bomb. Oh you humanitarian you, always looking out for the children. Embargos are to force them to make the decision to surrender before the people really starve and die. To get them pressured by the people to actually get it done and over with. Dropping an A-Bomb doesn't give them this option, it just kills them without any questions asked, any decisions to make, nor apply any real pressure for surrender. It just.... kills them. Think about that, humanitarians. | ||
|
Nitan
United States3401 Posts
On November 02 2008 17:38 stanners wrote: Terrible? Embargos, assassinations of the people responsible, disabling their firepower is more terrible compared to dropping bombs on innocent? No, I mean your bizarre idea of the world. Your solutions are so simplistic that they border on absurdity. Just get rid of their army? How would that work? | ||
|
the.dude
United States16 Posts
On November 02 2008 17:41 EmeraldSparks wrote: By the end of the war, the air force's most promising cadets were killing themselves in futile kamikaze assaults with the full blessings of their families and fifteen-year-old high school girls were being trained to kill Americans with bamboo spears and awls. The Americans expected to suffer a million casualties; the casualties on the Japanese side would likely have been far more horrific. The Japanese were big on fighting to the death. Even at the close of the war, men, women, and children in other parts of Asia were perishing in the thousands daily due to the continued war. It goes without saying that at that point in time, the idea of killing civilians to achieve military goals was completely accepted in all circles of leadership. However, there is some evidence to suggest that dropping the second bomb (conceivably the first) may have been unnecessary had the allies been willing to relax to a small degree the demand of unconditional surrender. This was held as unacceptable. It is also conceivable that choosing, say, Mt. Fuji or other less populous targets for demonstrations might have the same effect, the danger is that it would not and that we would have to wait X months for us to build more bombs. Allied leadership chose to fall on the side of ending the war more swiftly. yes, i think a much much more interesting question is how wise was the policy of unconditional surrender and its effects on the end game of the war. | ||
|
dinmsab
Malaysia2246 Posts
On November 02 2008 17:33 stanners wrote: Fuck, no. I don't care what the excuses are or what the reasons were. Dropping an atomic bomb that'll decimate all life into the heart of a civilian centre? That is the ultimate fucking low in war. You never kill civilians. If they dropped it into a heavily concentrated military area or supply area, then yes, I would say it is. But dropping it into the largest most populated cities? No, no matter how you put it, fucking no. And then dropping ANOTHER one? Any of least-viable justifications just went down the shithole. Testing the bomb? Testing it 50 times it in Nevada isn't enough? Can't get them to surrender? I'm sure there are a TON of ways to make them surrender. Such as embargos on their food, killing their leader, destroying their entire army, etc. Dropping TWO bombs into the heart of two populated cities was not necessary. What other bullshit reasons are there? No matter how you put it, it doesn't pan out. And what's with the title, you make this piece of history seem like a fuckin joke. dying by radiation is a more acceptable fate than seeing family members gets executed and raped in front of you, not to mention your next in line... and for no fucking reason at all. Geez, you only knew about pearl harbor if you knew what the rest of the world had to put up at that time you'll definitely have a new perspective on this. The chinese were probably the ones who had to face the worse from the japs, and thats not all.. even if you were chinese and living somewhere else you'll still get killed for just NO APPARENT REASON at all... except for the fact that your chinese. Starting a war is one thing, but if your prepared to kill civilians and shit... just dont be wussies when do the same on you. They got off easy with 2 nukes, if China was the one holding the nuke button at that time i wont be suprised if the entire island gets blowned up to pieces. Fallout 4 anyone? | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
as with all ethical decisions, we may choose a number of starting principles. if we count the prevention of senseless slaughter as itself a moral aim, then the kind of thinking that legitimizes such slaughter becomes a problem, rather than legitimation on face value. of course, one is technically free to take the hard line and say that the political logic is sound irregard the real impact of events on lives, but then we run into the arbitrary nature of justification itself, and the detachment of such thinking to a more developed sense of human wellbeing. humans are not naive angels, we do accept violence and destruction under certain situations, so general justification in itself is no warrant for doubt. the logic of conflicts is an interesting problem, in that when viewed from a third person perspective, the solution can be easily seen. however, when one adopts the interests and views of one participant, or even try to 'find a solution' from such a perspective (where the other side's behaviors etc are formulated as givens, rather than negotiable), we often find the hostile solution "necessary." one benign example would be prisoner's dilemma, but there are others as well. so rationales of political action should strive to be heuristic rather than strictly prescriptive, largely because the former offers more chance of progress of principles. in any case, in the particular situation, the political rationalizations were not strong enough. deterrence of unfavorable political positions is rather valuable if one holds a grudge against communism, and imaginary millions lost to a land invasion were lost to an zeal to finish the war completely. given the gravity of the nuclear option, the standard for using it should be immensely high, and not the least due to deterrence. the contingent and rushed logic of that moment is only a display of an innocent callousness. | ||
|
Railz
United States1449 Posts
On November 02 2008 17:33 stanners wrote: Fuck, no. I don't care what the excuses are or what the reasons were. Dropping an atomic bomb that'll decimate all life into the heart of a civilian centre? That is the ultimate fucking low in war. You never kill civilians. If they dropped it into a heavily concentrated military area or supply area, then yes, I would say it is. But dropping it into the largest most populated cities? No, no matter how you put it, fucking no. And then dropping ANOTHER one? Any of least-viable justifications just went down the shithole. Testing the bomb? Testing it 50 times it in Nevada isn't enough? Can't get them to surrender? I'm sure there are a TON of ways to make them surrender. Such as embargos on their food, killing their leader, destroying their entire army, etc. Dropping TWO bombs into the heart of two populated cities was not necessary. What other bullshit reasons are there? No matter how you put it, it doesn't pan out. And what's with the title, you make this piece of history seem like a fuckin joke. I'm ashamed of you quite honestly. Lets pull apart your post. 1) "You never kill civilians" - Okay, except everyone, Japan, Russian, USA, Germany, Pretty much every fucking country that was listed in the war, killed Civilians. Fuck Japan Killed a shit ton of Chinese CIVILIANS during World War 2 2) "Largest most populated cities" - Tokyo wasn't chosen for a good reason 3) "Dropping another one" - They offered Japan a surrender option before they even dropped the first bomb. 4) "Testing it 50 times in..." Except, it had only been tested once, Trinity, then the next 2 were the ones dropped on Japan 5) "Embargos on food" - fuck are you dumb? That can cause more death then a fucking bomb - it is a lot more painful too. 6) "into the heart of two populated cities" - The populace needed to be shown they had to give up this war and give up the fanatical approach they had in following their leader. | ||
jhNz
Germany2762 Posts
| ||
|
stanners
United States49 Posts
On November 02 2008 17:44 Nitan wrote: No, I mean your bizarre idea of the world. Your solutions are so simplistic that they border on absurdity. Just get rid of their army? How would that work? Okay, let's just say my examples weren't the best, but they were just quick examples, but that's not the point. The point I'm making is, I'm sure there were better ways to handle the situation other than to drop the bomb 100,000+ innocent. Dropping a bomb away from the cities would've sufficed. Any any other strategic ploys my feeble mind cannot think of. But you're missing the point I am making. | ||
| ||
